Nitrate-Negative Campylobacter-Like Organisms

Steele, T W; Lanser, J.B.K.; Sangster, Norma

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(85)91410-2

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There were no obvious protein profile differences betwen the South African blood isolates and representatives of the dog and human faecal isolates from Sweden [2] and Australia [4]. There were no obvious protein profile differences betwen the South African blood isolates and representatives of the dog and human faecal isolates from Sweden [2] and Australia [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Identification of 'Campylobacter upsaliensis' and other catalase-negative campylobacters from paediatric blood cultures by numerical analysis of electrophoretic protein patterns

Owen¹

1989

FEMS Microbiology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-one strains of catalase-negative campylobacters from paediatric blood cultures were characterized by one-dimensional SDS-PAGE of cellular proteins. A further 11 Campylobacter strains were included for reference purposes. The partial protein patterns were used as the basis of a numerical analysis, which showed that 17 hippurate-negative strains had a high similarity to 'C. upsaliensis' (r greater than or equal to 0.82) irrespective of their geographical location, and that three hippurate-positive isolates had a high similarity (r greater than or equal to 0.87) to C. jejuni subsp. jejuni. One hippurate-positive CNW strain was not identified. The analysis of SDS-PAGE protein patterns proved an excellent method of characterizing these thermophilic campylobacter as they were difficult to identify by traditional methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Identification of 'Campylobacter upsaliensis' and other catalase-negative campylobacters from paediatric blood cultures by numerical analysis of electrophoretic protein patterns

Owen¹

1989

FEMS Microbiology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our DNArRNA hybridization results confirm that Campylobacter lari, Campylobacter hyointestinalis, and "Campylobacter upsaliensis" are true Campylobacter species (29,39,42,58). Recently, two groups of CLO strains, the nitrate-negative Campylobacter strains (25,50) and the urease-positive thermophilic Campylobacter strains (3, 4), were shown to be atypical Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter lari strains, respectively (38, 51). The name Campylobacter jejuni subsp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision of Campylobacter, Helicobacter, and Wolinella Taxonomy: Emendation of Generic Descriptions and Proposal of Arcobacter gen. nov.

Vandamme

Falsen

Rossau

et al. 1991

International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology

677

348

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybridization experiments were carried out between DNAs from more than 70 strains of Campylobacter spp. and related taxa and either 3H-labeled 23s rRNAs from reference strains belonging to Campylobacter fetus, Campylobacter concisus, Campylobacter sputorum, Campylobacter coli, and Campylobacter nitrofigilis, an unnamed Campylobacter sp. strain, and a Wolinella succinogenes strain or 3H-or 14C-labeled 23s rRNAs from 13 gram-negative reference strains. An immunotyping analysis of 130 antigens versus 34 antisera of campylobacters and related taxa was also performed. We found that all of the named campylobacters and related taxa belong to the same phylogenetic group, which we name rRNA superfamily VI and which is far removed from the gram-negative bacteria allocated to the five rRNA superfamilies sensu De Ley. There is a high degree of heterogeneity within this rRNA superfamily. Organisms belonging to rRNA superfamily VI should be reclassified in several genera. We propose that the emended genus Campylobacter should be limited to Campylo bacter fetus, Campylo bacter hy oin testinalis , Campylo bacter concisus, Campylo bacter m ucosalis , Campylobacter sputorum, Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter coli, Campylobacter lari, and "Campylobacter upsaliensis. " Wolinella curva and Wolinella recta are transferred to the genus Campylobacter as Campylobacter curvus comb. nov. and Campylobacter rectus comb. nov., respectively. Bacteroides gracilis and Bacteroides ureolyticus are generically misnamed and are closely related to the genus Campylobacter. Campylobacter nitrofigilis, Campylobacter cryaerophila, and an unnamed Campylobacter sp. strain constitute a new genus, for which the name Arcobacter is proposed; this genus contains two species, Arcobacter nitrofigilis comb. nov. (type species) and Arcobacter cryaerophilus comb. nov. Wolinellu succinogenes so far is the only species of the genus Wolinella. The genus Helicobacter is also emended; Campylobacter cinaedi and Campylobacter fennelliae are included in this genus as Helicobacter cinaedi comb. nov. and Helicobacter fennelliae comb. nov., respectively. The genus "Flexispira," with "Flexispira rappini" as the only species, is closely related to the genus Helicobacter. The free-living, sulfur-reducing campylobacters do not belong to any of these genera; they probably constitute a distinct genus within rRNA superfamily VI.At present, the genus Campylobacter consists of 13 welldefined species (40). Recently, two additional species, Campylobacter pylori and Campylobacter mustelae, were included in the new genus Helicobacter as Helicobacter pylori and Helicobacter mustelae, respectively (20). The clinical significance of all of these organisms was reviewed recently by Penner (40). A study of the taxonomic structure of the genus Campylobacter in which partial 16s rRNA sequence analysis was used revealed that the Campylobacter species can be divided into three major rRNA homology groups (58 It was the aim of this study to include all known campylobacters and possible relatives in...

show abstract

“…Aabenhus et al (2002), Bolton et al (1987), Chaban et al (2010), Debruyne et al (2009Debruyne et al ( , 2010, Engberg et al (2000), Etoh et al (1993), Flores et al (1990), Foster et al (2004), Fox et al (1989), Garcia et al (1983), Gebhart et al (1985), Harvey and Greenwood (1985), Inglis et al (2007), Kamma et al (1999), Kaur et al (2011), Koziel et al (2012, Lastovica et al (1989Lastovica et al ( , 2006Lastovica et al ( , 2009, Lastovica and Allos (2008), Lastovica and Skirrow (2000), Lawson et al (2001), Lindblom et al (1995), Macuch and Tanner (2000), Macfarlane et al (2007), Mahendran et al (2011), Man et al (2010b, Mukhopadhya et al (2011), Nielsen et al (2013), On et al (1995a), On and Vandamme (1997), Roop II et al (1985), Rossi et al (2009), Sandstedt and Ursing (1991), Sasaki et al (2003), Stanley et al (1992), Steele et al (1985), Suzuki et al (2013), Tanner et al (1981), Taylor et al (1986…”

Section: Ecology Of Arcobactermentioning

confidence: 99%